Topic: NBA Thread: Brought To You By The Tampa Bay Raptors Of Toronto

[broodwars]

I'm mixed on the whole play-in tournament system, myself. It feels like it's only there to appease the Western Conference teams, which are the only ones good enough every year where Seeds 9 & 10 could potentially belong in the playoffs and still be worthy opponents for the 1 & 2 seeds.

That's a good point. For discussion's sake, what would you suggest?

I came up with a couple then talked myself out of each one. For example, only have play in games for the final spot under certain circumstances.

• If 9 is within one game of 8 and/or won the season series, have a play in series. I think 8 should still get something. Maybe 8 has to win one game and 9 has to win two in a row so not really a tournament.
• If 8 to 10 are within one game (and/or each lower seed won the season series against the seed above it), 8 plays the winner of 9 and 10.

What you suggested sounds decent enough. I just feel like the Play-in Tournament is a bandaid on the overall problem that only 4-6 teams in the East max deserve to be in the playoffs, whereas 8-10 in the West routinely have the records to deserve inclusion. We've already addressed that the Eastern Conference will never agree to a Top 16 team Playoff format, so I suppose this is the best compromise we can get.

One thing I'd like to address with the Playoffs is the overall bracketing. I've never been a fan of the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 first round bracketing. It's designed to allow the Top Seed to basically coast its way through the playoffs. They get to beat up on the worst team in the playoffs 1st, and then AT WORST they face the #4 seed in the 2nd round. They don't potentially run into a team that's on their level until the Conference Finals, at which point their opponent has already been worn down by play against the 2nd & 3rd seeds. This is particularly true for the Eastern Conference, where the playoffs are routinely a joke every year as 1-2 teams just steamroll everyone else.

What I would prefer is this sort of bracketing in the 1st round: 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8. Then the winner of 1-5 faces the winner of 3-7, and the winner of 2-6 faces the winner of 4-8, and so on. This would allow for much more exciting matches in the 1st round, as you'd have teams facing off that are much more comparable to each other, rather than just have the top seeds steamrolling the weaklings every year. Granted, it does remove the parity of the existing 2nd round, where the 2nd & 3rd seeds beat each other up for the amusement of the 1 Seed they'll face in the Conference Finals.

I'd also go back to the 1st round being 5 games rather than 7. Especially with how injury-prone players are these days, 7 games in the easiest round is excessive. It also means teams have more energy for the 2nd and 3rd rounds, particularly in the West.  That will never happen, of course, because the League likes money.

[Adrock]

What you suggested sounds decent enough. I just feel like the Play-in Tournament is a bandaid on the overall problem that only 4-6 teams in the East max deserve to be in the playoffs, whereas 8-10 in the West routinely have the records to deserve inclusion. We've already addressed that the Eastern Conference will never agree to a Top 16 team Playoff format, so I suppose this is the best compromise we can get.

Since the league can’t just say, “LOL, play in games for the Western Conference only”, it was the best I could come up with to hide it.

If the league really wants to address the issues of lack of parity, tanking etc. etc., it’s going to have to get more creative and honestly, more controversial. Owning a professional sports team is a privilege, and if you’re going to run it poorly, maybe you shouldn’t own one.

Proposal #1: if you’re **** for X amount of years, you have to sell the team. Let someone else try. You’re hurting the league because you’re too incompetent and/or cheap to put together a competitive team. Donald Sterling is an extreme example (and he wasn’t even forced to sell because he sucked at running the team). There’s no excuse for the Clippers to have been terrible for like 90% of the time he owned the team. Still, I highly doubt team owners would vote to put themselves in the hot seat.

Proposal #2: incentivize winning beyond the additional revenue earned by playing more games in the playoffs and particularly for teams that just missed the playoffs. The 9 to 12 seeds with draft picks in the mid-teens end up on a treadmill (unless they luck into an impact player who slipped through the cracks) because they weren’t quite good enough to make the playoffs but weren’t bad enough to get a high draft pick. They almost always choose to eventually tank because there aren’t better alternatives.

What incentives? Maybe a scaling luxury tax break? That may open up a whole new can of worms. The point is to give teams a reason not to tank as well as a reasonable path to improve so they can maybe get over the hump.

One thing I'd like to address with the Playoffs is the overall bracketing. I've never been a fan of the 1-8, 2-7, 3-6, 4-5 first round bracketing. It's designed to allow the Top Seed to basically coast its way through the playoffs. They get to beat up on the worst team in the playoffs 1st, and then AT WORST they face the #4 seed in the 2nd round.

This one is a bit harder to crack because as you stated, it’s by design. Top teams are “rewarded” with an easier path because they were consistently good all year. I haven’t thought about this long enough to offer a real suggestion. Re-bracketing kind of invalidates the regular season.

I'd also go back to the 1st round being 5 games rather than 7. Especially with how injury-prone players are these days, 7 games in the easiest round is excessive. It also means teams have more energy for the 2nd and 3rd rounds, particularly in the West.  That will never happen, of course, because the League likes money.

I go back and forth on this one. Many of these series are hella boring though we get the occasional gem. Jazz vs. Nuggets was stupid good last year. It came down to the last shot in a Game 7. Mitchell and Murray were just throwing down 50 point games. Is that one series worth the slew of sweeps/gentleman sweeps? Personally, I might give you a different answer depending on which day you ask me.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Now I wish I posted the long post I typed out last night about play in options and how the points or how baf the East actually is.... But I got distracted and came back to finish it after the thought had passed, and couldn't articulate the point I was trying to make it so I just deleted it. :/

[Adrock]

I didn’t watch the game, but last time I looked at the box score for Warriors vs. Jazz, the former were up by 18 points. I just saw a clip of Curry’s go-ahead three pointer. What in the world even happened? The Jazz caught up and took the lead?! Yeah, I’m gonna need Warriors vs. Jazz in the first round. Please and thank you.

Now I wish I posted the long post I typed out last night about play in options and how the points or how baf the East actually is.... But I got distracted and came back to finish it after the thought had passed, and couldn't articulate the point I was trying to make it so I just deleted it. :/

Try again?

[BlackNMild2k1]

We were up by a good amount. With 5 minutes left, Jazz started clamping down, Warriors got a little loose, lead was erased quickly.

Luckily Warriors got their shot together in the last second and snatched victory back from the jaws of defeat, but it was a prime example of why I just don't trust this squad to close.

[broodwars]

Not terribly concerned about last night's loss. If we'd had Mitchell and Conley, we'd have won. Trent Forrest was playing major minutes last night. I wasn't expecting us to win. What I am concerned about is that we wasted 30 minutes of Gobert and Royce (who is playing injured) in a losing effort. The Jazz should have rested them for the next game against the Blazers.

[Adrock]

Steph Curry quadruple teamed. The Suns lost this game.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Well we pulled off the improbable and beat the Suns and the Jazz on a back to back night.

End of the game was so HYPE when we just kept chipping away and didn't give up, and somehow took the lead and won by 6 against the Suns last night.

Every game matters as we need to keep that 8 seed so we potentially have a 1 game Play-In against the 7 (Lakers!!?). I don't have high playoff hopes or anything, but just getting though the Play-In would be a season achievement, as I don't think anyone was really expecting anything better than a first round exit assuming we could even make the playoffs.

Our next game is Pels which shouldn't be too hard w/ Zion, and then a face off against Mem for the 8th seed, winner take the slot (Mem plays the Kings 2 games in a row b2b, so hopefully Sac can steal one from them). So it's absolutely critical that we win these next 3 games and secure the 7 seed!!!!

Steph Curry quadruple teamed. The Suns lost this game.

Didn't he make the 3 right then too?

and he still can't get most of the fouls on him called. Look at the level of attention they put on this man.
Who else in the history of basket ball routinely gets doubled, tripled, and now quadruple teamed!!? LMAO

edit: and I did it again, I typed out the top part of this message at 7am this morning, but never submitted it.
I do that so often most times, by the time I come back, I kinda lost the point I was trying to make, didn't feel like finishing the thought, or the conversation had already moved on and the moment passed.

[BlackNMild2k1]

So who doesn't want the Lakers in the 7th seed and in the Play-In Scenario?

Blazers losing last night opened up a few scenarios for the Lakers to get out, but it ain't very likely, but sill possible:



Who sees one of those slim possibilities happening?

Remaining games:
Portland v Denver

Dallas v Toronto
Dallas @ Minnesota

Lakers @ Indiana
Lakers @ New Orleans


Denver is pretty locked into the 4th seed, since the Clippers have Houston and OKC coming up.
So there's a chance they don't take the game v Portland seriously, since theirs nothing to really gain in an all out win. They may even favor the Lakers getting a little more wear and tear playing in the Play-In and let Portland have the win. On the other hand, they are helping decide who their 1st round opponent will be (Mavs or Blazers, as both of them are playing for the 5th/6th seeds)

Dallas facing off against 2 teams who's seasons are over. Maybe they have an axe to grind, but nothing the Mav's can't handle. I expect them to want to keep the 5th seed v the Nuggets instead of the 6th v the Clippers.
I'm gonna assume they win both of these games.

Lakers gotta go against Indiana, who is already locked in to the Play-In, but fighting for a possible 8th seed slot instead of a 9th... that's a lot to play for as it's a 1 win situation instead of a 2 game win situation being in 9th. New Orleans season is already over, but I feel like the Pels still got a little juice. They Play the Warriors tonight, so if that goes how I planned, maybe they fight like hell against the Lakers to prove a point.
In all possible scenario's, the Lakers NEED to win both games, but they also need Portland and/or Dallas to lose a game as well.

So who sees this playing out with the Lakers NOT being in the Play-in?
The Blazers don't plan till Sunday, but I really doubt the Mav's lose both their games to two of the worst teams in the NBA.

[Adrock]

I expect the Lakers to end up in the 7th seed. I also think it’s entirely possible the Lakers drop both play in games due to lacking chemistry and some players (namely James) likely not in game shape. They’re about to get everyone back, hopefully for good this time, so it can go either way. The Lakers might have too much talent to miss the playoffs. Maybe they get an ugly but gritty win.

While the Nuggets are locked into the 4th seed, they may still have something to gain against the Blazers on Sunday depending on who they’d rather play in the first round. The Mavericks are ahead of the Blazers in the standings, but the Blazers hold the tie breaker. I don’t know enough about either team to comment on who would be a better/worse matchup against the Nuggets. It should be noted the Nuggets lost the season series against the Mavericks and won the season series against the Blazers regardless of Sunday’s game. They were all pretty close games.

From the Blazers’ perspective, I’d rather not futz with the play in tournament. Even though they got swept by the Clippers this season, I wouldn’t want to risk a Super Saiyan Curry game. Then, anything could happen in an elimination scenario.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Dame I don't think had ever beat Steph in an elimination game.
At least not since 2015.

He wants no part of Warriors back to the wall situation.

[BlackNMild2k1]

8th Seed Baby

Steph with 46pts and the scoring title
Now we wait to see if Lakers stay in the 7th seed or not.

[BeautifulShy]

8th Seed Baby

Steph with 46pts and the scoring title
Now we wait to see if Lakers stay in the 7th seed or not.

Congrats you are either facing a healthy Lakers team or a revamped Trail Blazers team who has a bit more defense.

[BlackNMild2k1]

We not expecting much.

But we know win or lose, we can take the Grizz and get the 8th seed for the playoffs.

[Adrock]

Lakers vs. Warriors for the 7th seed.

Clippers and Nuggets tanked to avoid a team Stone Cold Stunned by injuries all year. *slow clap*

[broodwars]

Easy win for the Jazz tonight to finally claim the #1 Seed for the Playoffs, after going down by 12 early on against the Kings.

It'd be nice if we got the Grizzlies in the first round, but I don't think they're going to get past the Warriors or Lakers. As like is not, we're going to get stuck with the Warriors, hopefully with a fully recovered Donovan Mitchell. The Jazz are still being incredibly secretive about what his current health status is. It's not a good sign that they didn't let him come back and play limited minutes towards the end of the season, especially since they DID do that with Conley.

[Adrock]

I would think the entire Jazz medical staff told Mitchell to sit the hell down until the playoffs. The only thing you can really do for a sprained ankle is stay off it for a while. I’m saying this from experience. It took several months to not feel it most days, and even then, it’ll never be the same again. Granted, I don’t have the same access to doctors, trainers, and physical therapists as a professional athlete does. I’m also not in the same physical shape as Mitchell. Still, he probably won’t be 100% for the entire playoffs. The extra rest can only help even if getting some run in would help him get in game shape.

This is a weird year to be a top two seed in the West. Imagine playing hard all year to get the best records, and you potentially end up with the Lakers and Warriors to look forward to.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I know all the most informed feel without a doubt that Jokic should be this years MVP
but my bias self still feels that after this season, Curry very much deserves to be in that conversation with an underdogs chance of taking that title too.

Steph secured that Scoring Title and now joins the ranks of some Elite for having 2+ scoring Titles and 2+ MVP and 2+ Championships (Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar), and joining Jordan for being the only other person to get that scoring title after age of 33.

I know we still got a Play-In match or 2 play, but I'm ready. I feel like we are peaking at the right time. "MVP Steph" can hopefully carry us into the post season, and I don't think Jazz or Suns are particularly excited about having to face a healthy Lakers, nor a "MVP Steph" led Warriors

anyway here's our Pre-post Season line up for easy reference:

I assume everyone knows how the play-in tourney works?

Play-In Tourney Schedule:
Eastern Conference plays Tuesday
Hornets v Pacers @ 3:30pm pst
Wizards v Celtics @ 6pm pst


Western Conference plays Wednesday
Spurs v Grizzlies @ 4:30pm
Warriors v Lakers @ 7pm

[Adrock]

Sure, put Steph Curry in the conversation in the same way LeBron James and James Harden are in the conversation every year. I get it. The Warriors are a borderline G-League team without Curry (and Thompson). Still, he shouldn’t win because his team is (likely) the 7th/8th seed. Westbrook got MVP when the Thunder were the 6th seed which was questionable. The voters love narratives, and 2017 was the year Russell Westbrook averaged a triple double.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Westbrook's was questionable due to how he was getting his triple doubles, and he was only getting it because of the triple doubles.
I haven't watched a ton of Wizards games since they started clicking, but I was under the impression that the way he's getting his triple doubles now is actually inclusive to the team dynamic and not at all like what was happening back on the Thunder.

I could be wrong though.
But the narrative usually controls the votes, and Curry should be part of that narrative. It's controversial for a low seed to win, but there's no requirement for seeding to win.

I don't think there's ever been an MVP that has had such a low seed, or just didn't make the playoffs, but I'm not necessarily saying Steph should win it, but I know he's gonna get some votes, because he's part of that conversation, as he should be.

[Adrock]

I’ve been conditioned to think seeding matters, but really, there’s no criteria or guidelines for how to vote for these awards which consequently is why I mostly don’t care about any of these awards.

That said, what would criteria/guidelines even look like? Listening to podcasts and watching analysts on The YouTube, voters generally do not cast their votes for MVP on the consensus “best player in the league” because they’d just give it to Michael Jordan, LeBron James etc. etc. every year. They consider seeding because of the need to quantify performance in a team sport. At the same time, maybe seeding shouldn’t matter because a player works with what they’re given. Additionally, voters generally don’t focus on counting stats because stats are exploitable unless tied to a narrative (which is contradictory), and more importantly, effectiveness can’t always be quantified by numbers. For example, altering a shot at the rim doesn’t count as a block.

If the league is going to call the award “Most Valuable Player”, “most valuable” really should be more clearly defined. What is a particular player’s inherent value to a team’s success from a basketball perspective? Is the team still a functional professional basketball team without that particular player? A team’s overall performance should be weighed against a team’s performance without that particular player which can still be quantified (i.e. missed games, team’s +/- when that player is on the bench).

[BlackNMild2k1]

Let's not forget Steph's Gravity.... you really think some of the guys on this Warriors squad would be getting the looks, buckets, or even opportunities, had Steph not drawn 2-4 defenders with him everywhere he go. That don't show up on the stat sheets, but the "analytics" show it's effect on the game. Without Steph, this team right back in lottery again.

Another MVP candidate should probably be CP3. I didn't watch hardly any Sun's games, and I know they were kinda getting it together late last season, but now they #2 in the East after Lottery last year.... that's a big turn around. Honorable mentions to CP3, even though I don't like the guy.

I know Jokic is the season long favorite, but the end of season narrative has really shifted to Steph, so don't be surprised if it's closer than expected, or if Steph ends up taking the title of MVP too.

[nickmitch]

If the league is going to call the award “Most Valuable Player”, “most valuable” really should be more clearly defined. What is a particular player’s inherent value to a team’s success from a basketball perspective? Is the team still a functional professional basketball team without that particular player? A team’s overall performance should be weighed against a team’s performance without that particular player which can still be quantified (i.e. missed games, team’s +/- when that player is on the bench).

This is how I feel about the award.  "Most Valuable" to me means "biggest contributor to a team's success".  So, the MVP of the league should be the player that contributes more to their team's success than any other player.  If removing one player, without making any other changes, turns the team from a championship contender to a lottery team, then that's the most valuable player.

[BlackNMild2k1]

I know this has a very low probably, but they mentioned the ever so slight possibility of this happening.

Lakers v Warriors WCF.
now wouldn't that be fucking epic. Especially if the Lakers come from 8th seed all the way back to the WCF.
and somehow Curry manages the carry the entire Warriors squad all the way to the WCF.

It's not gonna happen, but the idea that it could would make for a great NBA story.
Other teams are too good though. W/o Klay, I don't see us repeatedly surviving a 7 game series against most of the West teams

[nickmitch]

That would be pretty epic, not gonna lie.